Mr. David French:

I will answer the questions in order and please let me know if I miss any of them.

If the proposed amendment was in place at the time of Valerie's murder, then a different approach would have been taken towards the accused. He would be seen as someone who would not necessarily be in the room forever in respect of the boys. When I say "in the room", I mean as a guardian inside the Family Law Court. That is very important because in the current situation, without Valerie's law, the approach is that the verdict might happen, it might not happen, it might be a mistrial or who knows, but it is effectively irrelevant when it comes to the Family Law Court because he will remain a guardian regardless. A different approach would have been taken to him if there was a potential that he would not be there anymore. Also, the ideas that he would have or the statements that he would make would be weighed against the view that he might not be a guardian forever.

Suspending or removing guardianship in advance of a verdict would create a lot of problems. I am not a legal person and I have not a clue. There is a presumption of innocence and until there is a verdict, I do not feel there is a right to do anything. I think it would practically sabotage any attempt to do something. A lot can be done via policy and principles. If we know there is a potential that someone will lose guardianship, then the policy and principles could treat him or her in a very different way and weigh his or her input in a different way. That person would have guardianship but it would not necessarily be seen as something that is going to go on forever. I am not sure I have fully answered the Deputy.